iPod as trojan horse

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
doesn't it bother you that the iPod is so cool, yet it's just an MP3 player? doesn't it seem to have too much UI work and design appeal to

limit it's life to decoding bad music? i liken my iPod like to my first Mac Plus, not my Rio. why? instinct alone tells me apple has a big future planned with the iPod smack dab in the middle.



the "REMOTE" diagnostic may not be for the minidisc-style headphone mounted remote control as everyone has guessed. who wants a remote when the device is so small and easy to use? "REMOTE" may mean remote control. and with that i present you the trojan horse and a can of worms.



why didn't the ipod ship with the "REMOTE"? or a cap for the firewire port? and why didn't they design it with a standard Firewire port so

cables would fit snugly? what are those three extra contacts for in the headphone jack? is it because something(s) is supposed to snap on?



i would pay $100 to transform my iPod into a universal remote. get TV guides from the net. create custom channel lineups and interfaces. i have an ir remote WATCH ($15 - china town) so i know they can afford to fit this in. this brings to mind that Apple UK press release snafu invoving an apple set top box a month ago.



i'd fork over $200 to be able to hook up a microphone to my iPod. is that what those extra three contacts are for? They'd certainly appeal to musicians and the dictation market.



i'd shell out $300 to upgrade it to the as-yet unannounced high-speed point-to-point beaming firewire (apple patent 'firewave' or IEEE1394b). beam data to my friends & play games. synch without wires. etc.



i'd be the first to dole over $400 to convert it into a phone. the UI is definately up to the task. synch addressbooks with mac.



And finally, I'd happily give apple $500 to make my iPod Bluetooth. check my iPod to see if I'm out of milk, and find out if my Segway has enough juice to make it to the store.



here is a reason why something HAS to snap on: those three extra contacts are just sitting there on 3 of the 4 sides, pointing up the ring. whatever plugs in there can't just plug in there,

the plug would twist and the contacts would break. the connector needs someting secured elsewhere.



so this is my prediction: the iPod isn't an mp3 player. the name iPod has nothing to do with music. they don't even make references to the term "mp3 player" in it's description, they only say "1000 songs in your pocket". the iPod is really a small and relatively fast computer with a simple interface and the ability to multitask (try changing the volume while fast forwarding through a song, or play breakout). this makes it a perfect canindate to be a 'life remote'. a personal phone, dictation, music, remote, and orginization device. the name iPod relates to this description better than it does to "1000 songs". and just like the 1984 Mac, this will shatter some worlds, so it's being snuck in like some other comperably priced hand held device. in true trojan horse fashion.

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    Wow...An idea that actually makes sense!



    No iDock bullsh!t. Face it people the iDock can't possibly happen, I was just ROTFLMAO the entire time i was reading any of those threads on how ludicrasly stupid they are.

    On the other hand, this makes perfect sense. I put my vote in for this.
  • Reply 2 of 32
    moazammoazam Posts: 136member
    You have WAY to much money.



    -Moazam
  • Reply 3 of 32
    [quote]Originally posted by Eupfhoria:

    <strong>Wow...An idea that actually makes sense!



    No iDock bullsh!t. Face it people the iDock can't possibly happen, I was just ROTFLMAO the entire time i was reading any of those threads on how ludicrasly stupid they are.

    On the other hand, this makes perfect sense. I put my vote in for this.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Actually, I can see BOTH happening. The iDock that I speak of is similar to a replacement for the entertainment center. If there was going to be an iDock, I think that is the most viable version of it.



    As for this "Life Remote", I think that is cool. However I think that Apple has more than just a "Life Remote" for our little buddy. I think this is one step that we really need to watch.



    Today is such a wonderful time to be a Mac-Head!!
  • Reply 4 of 32
    big macbig mac Posts: 480member
    According to a co-worker (not verified myself), the iPod actually has three CPUs: two strongarms and one special DSP. The DSP is said to be the only processor actually decoding the MP3s. And it's clear that the microphone port was meant to be more than a microphone. It seems very obvious that the iPod is meant to be more than an MP3 player. Perhaps the iPod is the other component to the digital hub strategy...
  • Reply 5 of 32
    [quote] i'd fork over $200 to be able to hook up a microphone to my iPod <hr></blockquote>



    :confused:



    You sound like a trust-fund brat.
  • Reply 6 of 32
    tcotco Posts: 87member
    [quote] You sound like a trust-fund brat. <hr></blockquote>



    You sound jealous.
  • Reply 7 of 32
    Actually, $200 is a whole lot just to get a microphone.



    Now:



    If said microphone did a *great* job of taking dictation and ye olde iPodde could then email your stuff to the person you *told* it to as an .rtf file...



    And also read yer email to you...



    And sync your to-do list with your voice notes
  • Reply 8 of 32
    [quote] You have WAY to much money. <hr></blockquote>



    [quote]You sound like a trust-fund brat. <hr></blockquote>



    YOU two are both losers. I was just making a point, $100, $200, $300, $400, $500, I'm trying to show you people how much apple is getting away with. No more need for a Phillips Pronto, Sony DAT, Nokia Phone or a memory deprived Palm Pilot. The prices I listed for those features are LESS than the prices each of those items alone. I'm not saying I'd be happy paying $1500 for a tricked out iPod, but I'm sure whatever add-on(s) apple has up it's sleave will be well worth it and kill competition they never had in the first place. Pixio and PortalPlayer already have technology in these markets! That ARM processor can already hack these tasks.



    Way to be friendly to a first-time poster. The truth: I'm an out of work multimedia designer who got an iPod as an early Christmas gift from his dad. What, are you guys still in the anger phase of the post Sept. 11 tragedy?



    Try looking at the bigger picture here.



    As for the iDock, it seems plausible, but unecessary. The new FireWave and new Airport should be our digital hubs. What they need now to finish up the product line is something that sits in my living room and can receive the mp3s and movies from my computer and iPod, and maybe act as a digital network recorder.



    [quote] I think that Apple has more than just a "Life Remote" for our little buddy <hr></blockquote>



    What more could there be? really, i can't think of anything!
  • Reply 9 of 32
    What are you guys talking about with this whole FireWave thing? I've never heard of it. Do you mean Gigawire? There are no Apple Patents or Trademarks listed as FireWave.
  • Reply 10 of 32
    murkmurk Posts: 935member
    This is the first I've heard of Firewave. There were some earlier rumors about Firewireless, etc. Lunarguy, have you actually tracked down a patent?
  • Reply 11 of 32
    cdhostagecdhostage Posts: 1,038member
    I second the mothion. You hae way too much money. Send me an iPod for Christmas, I don't hav eany yet! And you obviously have a dozen, snob.
  • Reply 12 of 32
    murkmurk Posts: 935member
    Snobs?



    Who let the poor guy in?



    [ 12-09-2001: Message edited by: murk ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 32
    Check this thing out: <a href="http://tess.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=k1qkd4.6.2"; target="_blank">iPod trademark</a> :eek:
  • Reply 14 of 32
    Hey, if you want to pay $200 to put a mic on an iPod, suit yourself. Some of us value our money a bit more, and that doesn't make us losers.



    <a href="http://www.griffintechnology.com/audio/order.html"; target="_blank">http://www.griffintechnology.com/audio/order.html</a>;
  • Reply 15 of 32
    You still sound like you have way to much money.



    -Moazam



    PS&gt; And no, I'm not jealous. I'm rollin on 20's..sheee1t..
  • Reply 16 of 32
    serranoserrano Posts: 1,806member
    [quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:

    <strong>Hey, if you want to pay $200 to put a mic on an iPod, suit yourself. Some of us value our money a bit more, and that doesn't make us losers.</strong><hr></blockquote>







    the prices are arbitrary . . .



    on another note



    [quote]Originally posted by lunarguy:

    <strong>are you guys still in the anger phase of the post Sept. 11 tragedy?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    what was that about? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 17 of 32
    gordygordy Posts: 978member
    [It's just awful when a decent topic gets bogged down with unecessary drama...]



    Back on topic, many have long held that the name 'iPod' implied it's general functionality. I'm waiting for Rev. 2, because I think that it will have better features, and be better suited for future capabilities--whatever they may be.



    [ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: gordy ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 32
    arty50arty50 Posts: 201member
    [quote]Originally posted by murk:

    <strong>This is the first I've heard of Firewave. There were some earlier rumors about Firewireless, etc. Lunarguy, have you actually tracked down a patent?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Wireless Firewire has been done by both <a href="http://www.architosh.com/news/1999-09/0902-wirelessfirewire.html"; target="_blank">Philips</a> and <a href="http://www.firewireworld.com/news/2000/01/20000127/necfirewirewireless.shtml"; target="_blank">NEC</a>. And if you head over to the IEEE 1394 Trade Organization's site, you can find <a href="http://www.1394ta.org/Press/2001Press/december/12.3.a.htm"; target="_blank">a proposal to send 1394 over 802.11 (Airport).</a>



    [ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: Arty50 ]</p>
  • Reply 19 of 32
    [quote]Originally posted by gordy:

    <strong>...the name 'iPod' implied it's general functionality. I'm waiting for Rev. 2]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think this is a good example of the general wisdom cautioning against buying rev A Apple products.



    (course... i bought a Rev A iBook.. but then, i *love that little thing.)
  • Reply 20 of 32
    The idea of a mac remote occurred to me too, I think it was last summer when the new iMac rumors were flying high. This isn't probably a new idea and I'm sure this has been all over the boards for years but hey, I'll give it a shot anyway



    IMHO iPod is too pricey to be the ultimate mac remote. My vision (tm of the mac remote is instead something like this:

    - cheap palm-like device with b/w screen

    - bluetooth networking (or wlan if battery life is enough)

    - charger/sync cradle a'la palm (or just directly attached to the mac itself like powerbook duo was)

    - simple UI with no handwriting recognition or any actual keyboard, just touch sensitive LCD



    User experience:

    The UI and user experience I thought of was based on "modules" a bit like control strip on the go. These modules would be mostly one way from mac to the remote, displaying data that is provided to the modules from the network (soap/web services etc) or just from desktop programs (you've got mail!). The communication from the remote to the mac would be mainly by huge easy to click buttons on the touch sensitive screen, five buttons / module max to keep the operation simple and fast.



    Typical use cases:

    - watching tv or working away from mac, remote alerts when you have new mail, new message in ICQ etc

    - providing information on ongoing processes, for example server status (load etc), rendering status (maya), network status to techies

    - providing basic news, tv, stocks etc info (your general portal stuff) when you're away from your mac but within range of the bluetooth/wlan

    - controlling mp3 player from your sofa (again, 5 buttons max)

    - Entourage alerts for tasks, calendar etc

    -



    Price issues:

    - keep the technology cheap, no high tech needed here

    - battery life not an issue, remote won't leave the house anyway. 5 hours of operation away from mac would be more than enough.

    - as the device doesn't actually compute anything but just displays stuff, processing power can be kept at minimum (cheap processors)

    - Keep it simple



    How to make it a success:

    - provide simple API to developers for building modules to work with existing programs

    - bundle with every mac or build special bundle packs at least to gain significant user base

    - keep the remote metaphor clear, it's not a pda. That way the common public can also understand it's usefulness (and it makes great cheesy ads: "Honey, remember when we had no remote on our TV?")



    At the time I thought of this, the biggest problem I thought of was that Jobs would never put a b/w screen on an Apple product, but well... seems like I was wrong on that one at least



    If Apple doesn't do that, it's possible to assemble similar setup from old Handspring Visor with wlan adapter, just some code on the PalmOS end and server to OSX side. Authentication to recognize which device belongs to what mac, perl/python/applescript/whatever support to the server side, some hacking around and off we go... Well, it's a dream



    Sumppi
Sign In or Register to comment.